The decision of the Mayor this evening was to push ahead with consultation on the existing options 2 and 3. Option 1 will no longer be considered.

Both remaining options preserve the frontage of the pool but without further work option 2 will result in no pool before 2015, and possibly not beyond that. Option 3 will almost certainly speed up the demise of Forest Hill as a town centre by moving the pool to a back street in Sydenham. Option 3 is not a viable site for a pool, so close to the refurbished swimming pool at Crystal Palace and will do nothing to attract people to the town centre. There will also be considerable planning problems with building high rise residential close to the houses in Derby Hill Crescent and on a site designated for leisure. The mayor was also remarkably dismissive of an art centre in Louise House due to problems with disabled access, although he did not quite rule this out.

I have no desire to see either options but these appear to be our choices - a pool in Sydenham and the slow demise of Forest Hill town centre, or a very uncertain possibility for a new pool on the existing site at least six years away.

Maybe I am just angry at the way the points raised by the Forest Hill Society (with the backing of all the organisations above) were so easily ignored. There should have been some attempt to make option 2 work from a planning and cost perspective. I would welcome other, possibly more positive views, about what the future holds for Forest Hill town centre and of swimming in this part of the borough.

Frustrating, but not surprising (considering the rest of the "consultation" procedure)

Just a thought

Am I right in saying that you do not need to own a piece of land to apply for planning permission for it? I believe it can be done so you can see IF you'd get permission before buying it, but I may be wrong.

In which case (if true) could we not force Lewisham's hand by applying for change of use (or putting forward specific plans that do not require change of use) for Willow Way and test whether it would actually get it or not? If you plans are sensible, then it could work, and then they'd almost be forced to agree to option 2.

As I said, just a late night, post dinner & wine, thought from a non planning person looking for new avenues forward (and some action)

I understand that you are frustrated and angry, Michael; however, whilst I agree that Option 2 is obviously the most desireable - if it can be delivered before 2015! - I think too much irrational negativity is put on the location of Option 3:

Willow Way is only 5 minutes or so further walk away from the present site.
I cannot see how a pool located there can have any more detrimental effect on the viability of the Crystal Palace pool than a pool some 400m further into SE23.
I don't see how you can think Forest Hill town centre will lose trade seeing as the Pools have been closed for some 4 years already.
Although Willow Way does not have frontage on the main road, it is not quite the back-street you portray.
I thought from the presentation slides that the housing designed for the present Pools site looked high quality and not overbearing to the existing buildings (or to Derby Hill).

As, I said - I like Option 2; I just think that people are being overly negative towards Option 3 when this can more speedily deliver a pool to Forest Hill (whilst not destroying the existing Pools' Victorian streetscape).

I agree with what Gaz says. The existing pools site was probably just big enough to support a viable local leisure centre which would have a chance of attracting a range of users, and becoming a lively local amenity. Following the interesting decision to list Louise House, the site desn't seem to me to be big enough to do this - especially if it is intended to retain the pools facade. Option 2 is likely to result in an unattractive facility with low useage levels, which in turn will mean that it would require substantial operating subsidies.

The Willow Way site is not only capable of supporting a good multi-purpose local centre; adjacent sites would also, in my view, offer the opportunity to expand the centre if it succeeded. It is true that it is not in Forest Hill town centre, but then most leisure centres outside central London are not in town centres - it's hard to accommodate such facilities into a high street location. It is, it is true, close to Crystal Palace, but, while a 10 minute jog away during the day, reaching the Crystal Palace centre requires a long detour after dark. The key thing would be the quality of activity and outreach programming - bearing in mind that there are different markets for leisure. To give just one example, it is positive in this respect that the site is almost next door to a good GP practice working in a poor area with a commitment to health improvement.

I would suggest that before making up their minds on the two options on offer, people should visit some successful leisure centres, such as Beckenham or East Dulwich. If you want a good leisure centre for future generations, you will have to be single-minded about it. Trying to combine conservation, commercial development of the high street and several other factors will not do this.

Gaz - one immediate response is that there is little business that end of Dartmouth Road as it is, and what is there has been "hanging on" waiting for the pools to be delivered.

It is bad that it will take a LOT longer to reopen, but at least they will be a reason to have a business there under Option 2. There would not be under Option 3 (or rather, the business incentive will be focused (again) on Sydenham).

If we want to maintain some semblance of a town centre, and not become a US-style suburb with only strip-malls to do our shopping in, then we need to encourage those destinations that increase foot traffic past shop windows.

Willow Way may not be THAT much further down the road, but people are not starting their walk at the pool. They already have 5-15 minute walks to get there, and 5+ minutes more will make a difference. It is far enough that most/many will not be walking at all, they'll drive or take the bus. That means no foot traffic. That means no business. And that probably means less 'community'.

Moving the pool there is not necessary, nor is it desirable. Instead we need to get the Council out of their "process" mentality and encourage action, even god forbid, creativity in addressing the issues of implementing Option 2. We cannot let them off the hook.

If you check back you'll see I've always been an advocate of getting a pool sooner rather than later, even at the expense of the Victorian facade, but I'm not prepared to do it at the expense of Forest Hill itself.

Well said Rob!

If there is a new pool in Willow Way I would certainly drive, but not to Willow Way, I would drive to Beckenham, Crystal Palace, Brockwell. If there is a new pool 10 minutes from my house I will use it, but not the one 20 minutes from my house.

Whilst Davewhiting does make some good points I can't help bear in mind that he lives directly between the too possible sites, and the lack of health provision in the north of Forest Hill ward (Forest Hill town and Honor Oak) is no reason for moving more services to the south (Sydenham).

In Perry Vale ward I had three GP surgeries within easy walking distance, now my closest one is further than Willow Way and I have no intention of moving from the Jenner if I can avoid it. But that is another rant, I am just feeling in a ranting mood today - apologies to all.

To be honest, if we try to combine every desirable object in this exercise, we are likely to end up with nothing. The offer for Forest Hill is already much reduced as a result of the listing of Louise House, and the fact that no single view emerged on what was required on this site. The Mayor's decision to proceed with this at all was taken against officer assessments of local need, and in response to local feeling (what politicians are for). This does not mean that this is an infinitely valuable development that will go ahead whatever obstacles are placed (knowingly or unknowingly) in its path. The Mayor's proposal of Willow Way represents an outbreak of commonsense which is much needed.

I think we need to nip one or two statements in the bud before they grow legs:

1. There are probably more people living close to the Willow Way site than to Forest Hill pools. (Walk up Wells Park Road if you don't believe me.)

2. Willow Way is hardly central Sydenham. It is about half a mile from Sydenham Road, and perhaps two miles from the Bridge. For practical purposes, it serves much the same catchment area as the existing pools site.

Rob:
Yes it is possible to make a planning application without owning the land, Aileen Buckton has experience of this herself. Which resulted in some odd thinking within the council.


1998: Award the contract for a new police station in the centre of Lewisham to Company A.

1999: Company B makes an application to replace Ladywell Leisure Centre and allotments with a police station.

Council notifies allotment holders to 'get off our land', the explaination for the notices to quit was merely because a planning application had been made!?

An application made by a company not awarded the contract, on a site the police had already rejected.

For about a year the council maintained they had to serve the notices on the allotment holders.

Meanwhile, back to Forest Hill.

If the reason Option 2 won't be ready before 2015 because of a funding gap, has it been indicated the timescale if the new pools were built to the ?9.5m budget available?

Very sad that LBC seem to ignore the FHS but that is life. I trust we can also choose to ignore the LBC when elections come. ( Not being serious as local councillors for Perry Vale I think do a good job and are nice people and they would suffer not our Lord Mayor ).

Re Willow Lane . No way. Currently I go by bus to Beckenham and see no reason to change. As I also now use Beckenham Library doubly convenient ( I am afraid one visit to new FH library was one to many, seem to have lost about two thirds of their books ). The Becks Leisure Centre really good and also a nice Costa Coffee.

At least the LBC cannot , I assume , demolish Louise House which hopefully will restrict their plans for even more unrequired housing. Who is going to buy these houses?



Michael do not be to despondent you have done your best.

Didn't the papers back in 2005 state The Bridge would lose 50% of of its customers to new pools at Forest Hill?

If the new pools are moved closer to Sydenham won't The Bridge become unviable?

Willow Way and Wells Park Rd are not even in Forest Hill! If the site is moved, what becomes of the old building on the original site?

Leaving the original site empty and falling apart, does nothing to regenerate Forest Hill town centre . The council has a responsibility not only to reintroduce swimming facilities to Forest Hill but also to maintain the original pool building. What we dont want is a housing estate on this site.

Indeed if 'Forest Hill' pools were to go elsewhere, it would no longer be in our sphere of influence.
Our local councillors would tut tut but say it is nothing to do with them if these proposed Upper Sydenham pools were to be closed in the future. Or not quite get built in the first place.

Plus (what remains of) the Vicar's field is morally only available for purposes deemed to be socially worthwhile - basically aimed at the poor and deprived. Family housing is not what they had in mind, let alone flats for urban professionals.

Obesity is becoming one of the biggest killers of the poor and like it or not swimming is one of the best forms of exercise especially for the young and old. That some of SE23 may just fall in the catchment area of existing pools outside the area, some yet to be built, is not really good enough.

We are a distinct densely populated area. We have a requirement. A need, that was being met locally to some extent just 2 years ago. We cant leave this to chance. It is our problem and every year they delay has a massive health cost.

If there's any question over the density of population in Forest Hill, try travelling into London anytime between 7.30am and 9.30am - then you'll see!

Perryman -
may be surprised to hear that at last night's meeting Steve Bullock told us that the Willow Way site WAS in Forest Hill. I haven't checked the maps but he said that it was in Forest Hill because it was in Forest Hill Ward! So our Forest Hill Councillors would still be responsible for it, even though it is in SE26 and closer to Sydenham than Sydenham Police Station. And, of course, the undertaking to provide swimming in Forest Hill would still be being fulfilled.

davidwhiting -
might like to compare the plan for option 2 in the stakeholder presentation with that for option 3. Option 3 uses all of the available site and looks cramped internally. At least in Option 2 there is some public open space available to the east of the site.

And at the risk of being criticised for repeating myself yet again - Willow Way is at least 600m from the existing Pools site, not the 400m that has been repeatedly quoted. If Officers can't even measure a distance correctly without making a 50% error, what confidence can we have that the finances are not out by at least the same factor? Knock 1/3 off the cost of option 2 and it suddenly looks very much more affordable.

So our Mayor is now moving ancient boundries to suit his case.
I ahev lived in the area 60 years now and Willow Way was and is in Sydenham.
I guess he will want to change Sydenham School for Girls and also Sydenham Police Station , both nearer to SE 23 but still in Sydenham SE 26.
I

Sorry half way through the message and must have pressed sent.

I wonder what our local history expert has to say about this. Local electoral wards do not follow the same boundries, hence Perry Vale includes all of Mayow Park and a lot of the Thorpe's which are all in Sydenham.

On the contrary, I do think we need to nip your statements in the bud.

1. When you say "more people", do you mean more people in Forest Hill? This totally fails to recognise that the pool would serve swimmers from a wider northern catchment area - Honor Oak and Brockley, for whom Willow Way really is that bit too far.

2. Yes, hardly central Sydenham, but if you are coming from Honor Oak, about as far as going to the Bridge. The existing pools site is significantly closer and would, from Honor Oak, represent the difference between walking (as I used to do to the old pools) and driving (as I do now to the Bridge).

Meanwhile, for those craving swimming before 2015, there are other pools open to the public evenings and weekend. Those in Blythe Hill might wish to check out St. Dunstan's Pool and Gym and for those to the west may wish to check out the various Dulwich establishments' offerings.

Let's stop arguing which is closer to where. I have done a map for us.
I have placed circles around the two sites in question as well as all other local pools. The circles are not an exact size but I would suggest about 2/3rd miles radius.

What is striking about this map is that whilst there is some overlap from the Dartmouth Road site with both Crystal Palace and The Bridge, this overlap is much more pronounced for Willow Way. In about 1/3 of the circle of Willow Way people are closer to another pool.

Now look to the north of the circles, you can see how far it is for many people in SE23 to travel to there nearest pool. For most Willow Way will still be closer than East Dulwich and Ladywell (on its current site), which are represented by the edges of equal sized circles at the top. But the argument that Wells Park Estate need a pool 5 minutes away when they have two 10 minutes away does not do justice to the residents of Honor Oak Park and Perry Vale ward who will not even have one 15 minutes from their house.

You have to ask the question how long you expect these three pools to continue to survive and I believe Max has a good point when he says that if option 3 does get the go ahead in 20 years time one of the two Sydenham Pools will be shut down.

I hope this map is useful, feel free to interpret it differently if you wish.